Bar Admissions

No. 40 Kyle Blackstone et al. v. Dinesh Sharma et al; Terrance Shanahan et al. v. Seyed Marvastian et al.

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a mortgage foreclosure action, which is a purely in rem proceeding against the subject real property, a “consumer claim” for “money owed” under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”)? 2) Is filing a mortgage foreclosure action, which by statute is not “doing business in this State,” nevertheless “doing business as a collection agency in this State” under MCALA? 3) Is the CSA’s ruling in Finch v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 212 Md.App. 748 (2013) – i.e., that a judgment in favor of an unlicensed debt collection agency is void as opposed to voidable – applicable to mortgage foreclosure judgments?

Attorney for Petitioner: Hope T. Cannon
Attorney for Respondent: Phillip Robinson

No. 45 Laura O'Sullivan et al. Substitute Trustees v. Jeffrey Altenburg et al.

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Can the trial court dismiss a foreclosure because a foreign statutory trust lacks a collection agency license under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”), despite established Md. authority holding that entities, such as a trustee of the trust and its substitute trustees, may enforce a promissory note indorsed in blank in their possession, regardless of who owns the debt or the foreign statutory trust’s legal status? 2) Does pursuing a foreclosure constitute “doing business as a collection agency” in Md. under MCALA? 3) Is a foreclosure action a “consumer claim” to collect “money owed” under MCALA? 4) Does a foreign statutory trust that owns mortgage assets fall under MCALA’s “trust company” exemption?

Attorney for Appellant: Ava E. Lias-Booker
Attorney for Appellee: Phillip Robinson

No. 47 Martin S. Goldberg et al. Substitute Trustees v. Martha Lynn Neviaser et al.

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Can the trial court dismiss a foreclosure because a foreign statutory trust lacks a collection agency license under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”), despite established Md. authority holding that entities, such as a trustee of the trust and its substitute trustees, may enforce a promissory note indorsed in blank in their possession, regardless of who owns the debt or the foreign statutory trust’s legal status? 2) Does pursuing a foreclosure constitute “doing business as a collection agency” in Md. under MCALA? 3) Is a foreclosure action a “consumer claim” to collect “money owed” under MCALA? 4) Does a foreign statutory trust that owns mortgage assets fall under MCALA’s “trust company” exemption?

Attorney for Appellant: Ava E. Lias-Booker
Attorney for Appellee: Scott Borison

AG No. 113 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Vaughn Miles Mungin

Attorney for Petitioner: William C. Brennan, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Raymond A. Hein

No. 22 State of Maryland v. Casey O. Johnson

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA properly conclude that the police lacked probable cause to search the trunk of respondent’s car based on drug evidence found on the person of her front-seat passenger?

Attorney for Petitioner: Sarah Page Pritzlaff
Attorney for Respondent: Samuel D. Cowin

No. 41 June Diane Duffy, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James F. Piper v. CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the term “arising” used in § 2 of the original statute of repose actually means “accruing” in contravention of this Court’s holding in John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Respondent had a constitutional vested right to repose prior to the effective date of the 1991 amendment to the statute which explicitly exempted manufacturers of asbestos-containing products from the scope of repose? 3) As applied, does CSA’s decision violate Petitioner’s constitutional right to access the courts?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Ian G. Thomas and Daniel Brown
Attorney for Respondent: Christopher G. Conley

Misc. No. 4 Amber Ben-Davies v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A.; Bryione K. Moore v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A.

Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Question - Is the legal rate of post-judgment interest on a judgment awarded in a breach of contract action where the underlying contract is a residential lease ten percent (10%) as stated in Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-107(a) or is it six percent (6%) as stated in Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc § 11-107(b), which states that it is applicable to "a money judgment for rent of residential premises," where the judgment in the breach of contract action does not specifically delineate what portion, if any, of the judgment was awarded for unpaid rent?'

Attorney for Appellant: Steven B. Isbister
Attorney for Appellee: James Dickerman

No. 39 Patricia Lamalfa v. Janis Hearn et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Were Defense Exhibits 2-5 inadmissible hearsay due to the failure of authentication as a condition precedent to the business records exception to the hearsay rule? 2) Did the trial court err by admitting medical records pursuant to Md. Rule 5-703 without an appropriate foundation for establishing the truthfulness of the records?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Ryan P. Richie and Jennifer L. Allen
Attorney for Respondent: George Fanshaw

No. 26 Victoria Seaborne-Worsley v. Jeffrey Mintiens

Issues – Torts – 1) In an automobile collision case, can the negligence of a permissive driver be imputed to a sole-owner passenger who is seeking recovery for injuries caused by a negligent third-party driver? 2) Was the non-party driver’s negligent parking a proximate cause of the accident?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Mandy Miliman and Howard Miliman
Attorney for Respondent: Frank F. Daily

No. 27 Melissa Rodriguez et al. v. Larry Cooper et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err in applying the cap on non-economic damages under Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. § 11-108? 2) Did the trial court err in failing to enter judgment against the State?

Attorney for Petitioner: Cary Hansel
Attorney for Respondent: Steven M. Sullivan

No. 28 State of Maryland v. Neiswanger Management Services LLC et al.

Issues – Health – 1) Did the trial court err in holding that, although Health-Gen. § 19-345.3 authorizes a court to grant “injunctive relief” to remedy violations of the discharge-related provisions of the Patient’s Bill of Rights, the statute does not authorize “broad injunctive relief” barring “company practices” that violate those provisions? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that, although Health-Gen.§ 19-344 confers responsibility on the Attorney General for “enforcement” of certain of its provisions, it does not authorize the Attorney General to seek, or a court to grant, a judicial injunction enforcing those provisions?

Attorney for Appellant: Joshua Auerbach
Attorney for Appellee: Sara Lord

No. 43 Precision Small Engines, Inc. et al. v. City of College Park et al.

Issue – Land Use – Did CSA err in declaring that the memorandum of understanding between the City of College Park and the county restricts the authority of the city to issue non-residential building and occupation permits?

Attorney for Petitioner: Steven B. Preller
Attorney for Respondent: Suellen M. Ferguson